Civil Rights Movement encroaches on rights?

[shortcake57]

Throughout my public school education, I constantly learned about the Civil Rights Movement and its heroes. We literally sang songs about the courage of MLK, Rosa Parks, and Malcolm X, and we were taught of the right of all humans to be treated equally. For a long time, I never questioned the "goodness" of the movement.

Making segregation in a diner illegal intuitively seems like the right thing, right? Racism is stupid and disgusting to me, and no one deserves to be treated that way. But what I've come to realize is that is just a value that I hold as an individual, and society has no right to tell a private establishment that they must follow a particular value (for example by serving a particular person). Rather, that diner should be given three freedom to accept the consequences of its choice. Perhaps that means losing the business of African-Americans and those that find racism loathsome. If the diner finds these consequences unbearable, it will be forced to change its policy or shut down. If not--if it can continue to make a profit with such a policy--it has proven itself an asset to the community worth the policy. It's up to customers to make that choice, not the government.

(One place the Civil Rights Movement appropriately made this impact is in the realm of government. The government, as it is supported by and speaks for all its citizens, must treat all its citizens equally.)

Your thoughts?

 

[Milldrum]

I disagree that a store should be allowed to make a rule to exclude a person based on race/skin color. That is all I will say.

 

[Joel]

I disagree that a store should be allowed to make a rule to exclude a person based on race/skin color. That is all I will say.

Why?

 

[Gonales]

Oh my god. We basically had the same kind of discussion on the Homosexuality thread. Why are people so hellbent against laws that stimulate equality? I don't get it :/ Seriously, let people be equal. I think the people that are so hellbent against legislation are the ones that make society a worse place. :s

 

[Tesla]

Because the government shouldn't be forcing people to allow certain people into their business. I have a right to only allow certain people into my home, and I have a right to only allow certain people to use or borrow my property. Why is it different for a privately run business? If you don't like their policies, simply go to one of their competitors and give them your money instead of supporting the business you think operates immorally.

 

[homeforsummer]

Seriously, let people be equal.

People are equal. A private business has the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason they see fit. It may be nasty, but it's still equality - it's just treating everyone equally likely to be refused for any reason...

Refusing business to someone on grounds of skin colour or race alone is abhorrent, but such a business would quickly fail in today's more equal society, so doing so would be akin to signing their own death warrant.

I suspect that, in all but a few areas around the world, advertising your restaurant as "whites only" wouldn't even see much business from white people - who wants to eat in a restaurant with that kind of policy?...

 

[Famine]

Making segregation in a diner illegal intuitively seems like the right thing, right? Racism is stupid and disgusting to me, and no one deserves to be treated that way.

Yes.

But what I've come to realize is that is just a value that I hold as an individual, and society has no right to tell a private establishment that they must follow a particular value (for example by serving a particular person). Rather, that diner should be given three freedom to accept the consequences of its choice. Perhaps that means losing the business of African-Americans and those that find racism loathsome. If the diner finds these consequences unbearable, it will be forced to change its policy or shut down. If not--if it can continue to make a profit with such a policy--it has proven itself an asset to the community worth the policy. It's up to customers to make that choice, not the government.

Yes.

(One place the Civil Rights Movement appropriately made this impact is in the realm of government. The government, as it is supported by and speaks for all its citizens, must treat all its citizens equally.)

Yes.

Because the government shouldn't be forcing people to allow certain people into their business. I have a right to only allow certain people into my home, and I have a right to only allow certain people to use or borrow my property. Why is it different for a privately run business? If you don't like their policies, simply go to one of their competitors and give them your money instead of supporting the business you think operates immorally.

Yes.

People are equal. A private business has the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason they see fit. It may be nasty, but it's still equality - it's just treating everyone equally likely to be refused for any reason...

Yes.

Refusing business to someone on grounds of skin colour or race alone is abhorrent, but such a business would quickly fail in today's more equal society, so doing so would be akin to signing their own death warrant.

Yes.

I suspect that, in all but a few areas around the world, advertising your restaurant as "whites only" wouldn't even see much business from white people - who wants to eat in a restaurant with that kind of policy?...

Yes.

Legislating equality - and worse still, legislating "affirmative action" - doesn't make the problem of racism, sexism, ageism, sexualpreferenceism, heightism or whatever else go away. It makes it more entrenched, more engrained, more likely that fascist groups arise to tap into the embittered sentiment.

I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on skin colour - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on gender - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on sexual preference - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on age - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on any reason other than how the employee performs or how the customer behaves.

And look, no legislation was required.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Famine makes a strong point. The problem isn't racism as it was back in the 1960s, the problem is when you take the steps to correct that racism as if you committed a unwritten crime, or in other words, Affirmative Action.

Those civil rights laws that are on the books today are only there to protect minorities, fair enough, but it comes to a point where they are more of a hindrance than a help. Take Jessie Jackson for example. He sued various companies in the name of affirmative action as a means for blackmail. Will someone call him out on it? Eventually, but they are too scared too because Jackson is black.

 

[shortcake57]

I disagree that a store should be allowed to make a rule to exclude a person based on race/skin color. That is all I will say.

Why are stores allowed to turn away smokers from their stores?

 

[Dennisch]

Why are stores allowed to turn away smokers from their stores?

Second hand smoking.

I never heard someone get sick over second hand non-white skin.

 

[shortcake57]

I personally find it disgusting to eat next to someone who is smoking a cigarette, but someone could have a similar feeling about a person with a sinus infection. Why don't we make it illegal for a sick person to eat at restaurants?

 

[Dennisch]

There is difference in finding something disgusting and something that can harm you. That is why I always smoke outside of my house, because I don't want to make my gf's lungs black as mine. And I find it disgusting to smell an ashtray in the morning.

 

[Famine]

I personally find it disgusting to eat next to someone who is smoking a cigarette, but someone could have a similar feeling about a person with a sinus infection. Why don't we make it illegal for a sick person to eat at restaurants?

Indeed - every outbreak of flu or "winter vomiting bug" (rotavirus, norovirus) you've heard of is sick people going to places there's other people. Usually public schools.

And if you think they're a trifle, they kill about half a million kids a year between them.

 

[Joel]

Yes.

I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on skin colour - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on gender - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on sexual preference - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on age - I'm sure most other people wouldn't either. I won't buy from a business I know treats employees or customers differently based on any reason other than how the employee performs or how the customer behaves.

And look, no legislation was required.

This is basically my view of it too. In 2012, how well is any company going to do if they bar gays/blacks/[insert minority here] from being served? These businesses would be restricted to very very small niches and would be viewed the same way as the WBC is by the general population; idiots not worthy of attention, anyone's business, or anyone's time. There's also that I'd rather know that the restaurant I'm eating at or the store I'm buying from treats all employees and customers equally because it's the right thing to do, rather than because it's illegal not to. I find that's true of a lot of these laws that are allegedly "compassionate". Is it "compassion" that we pay taxes on threat of jail time that go to feeding the poor? Is it compassionate that it's illegal for companies to discriminate in hiring? Is it compassionate that McDonalds has to serve everyone by law? I'd rather know that people are donating to charity, hiring fairly, and treating employees/customers fairly because of their own values, rather than because they'll be fined otherwise.

 

[shortcake57]

This is basically my view of it too. In 2012, how well is any company going to do if they bar gays/blacks/[insert minority here] from being served? These businesses would be restricted to very very small niches and would be viewed the same way as the WBC is by the general population; idiots not worthy of attention, anyone's business, or anyone's time. There's also that I'd rather know that the restaurant I'm eating at or the store I'm buying from treats all employees and customers equally because it's the right thing to do, rather than because it's illegal not to. I find that's true of a lot of these laws that are allegedly "compassionate". Is it "compassion" that we pay taxes on threat of jail time that go to feeding the poor? Is it compassionate that it's illegal for companies to discriminate in hiring? Is it compassionate that McDonalds has to serve everyone by law? I'd rather know that people are donating to charity, hiring fairly, and treating employees/customers fairly because of their own values, rather than because they'll be fined otherwise.

 

[Azuremen]

Oh my god. We basically had the same kind of discussion on the Homosexuality thread. Why are people so hellbent against laws that stimulate equality? I don't get it :/ Seriously, let people be equal. I think the people that are so hellbent against legislation are the ones that make society a worse place. :s

I find people that are completely incapable of seeing the world through eyes other than their own also make the world a worse place. If you could, for just a moment, set your narcissism aside you'd perhaps understand why forcing others to acknowledge "equality" doesn't actual work.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Does a "Men's Club" where only men are allowed to join violate anyone's civil rights?

How about an "[insert minority re]" club designed to promote or advance the cause of the particular minority?

What about Boy or Girl Scouts?

What about Men's or Women's Sports?

Ever see an unattractive women at Hooters?

Ever see a pear shaped, ugly male stripper?

Ever see an NFL cheerleader that wasn't hot?

Society is full of exceptions to equality, most of which we don't even notice or care about.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Making segregation in a diner illegal intuitively seems like the right thing, right? Racism is stupid and disgusting to me, and no one deserves to be treated that way. But what I've come to realize is that is just a value that I hold as an individual, and society has no right to tell a private establishment that they must follow a particular value (for example by serving a particular person). Rather, that diner should be given three freedom to accept the consequences of its choice. Perhaps that means losing the business of African-Americans and those that find racism loathsome. If the diner finds these consequences unbearable, it will be forced to change its policy or shut down. If not--if it can continue to make a profit with such a policy--it has proven itself an asset to the community worth the policy. It's up to customers to make that choice, not the government.

It seems odd to me that you would happily trample of the rights of many (the customers) to protect the rights of the few (the diner).

If a diner were allowed to segregate its customers based on their skin colour, then the natural extension of that is that it would also be allowed to segregate its customers based on age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, political alleigance, physical disability and so on. Now, you might think that the only people to suffer from this would be the elderly black Jewish lesbian Democrats with amputated legs, but that's just naive. All you are going to do is create a society where discriminative attitudes are encouraged under the pretense of being for personal choice.

I'm willing to bet that you're a) white, b) a teenager, c) come from a fairly stable home life, and d) have never been a victim or target of discrimination. Only someone with no life experience and the assumption that they know more about the way the world works than they actually do could question one of the most important social revolutions in human history on the basis that it actually undermined the rights it claimed to protect, whilst behaving as if you are the only person capable of seeing this lie that has been perpetuated on the world for half a century. Your attitude and your opinions are naive and insulting at best, and worst, you come across as having a "shocking and thought-provoking" opinion for the sake of it.

The ability to tell when people are lying to you is a virtue. The ability to assume that everyone is always lying to you is not. Cynicism is not something to be valued or to be proud of.

 

[Azuremen]

Prisonermonkeys, read into things more while tossing in subtle insults. Good lord. Also love how you make 4 assumptions and then ramble on about social injustice to a person you know nothing about.

Also, your argument seems to amount to the idea that people will discriminate simply because they can, provided Big Brother doesn't tell them what is okay and what is wrong. The reality is people will discriminate regardless of the laws because there are so many ways to do it, and if you don't believe this is the case it is you that is naive.

 

[Famine]

It seems odd to me that you would happily trample of the rights of many (the customers) to protect the rights of the few (the diner).

No-one has a right to buy a product (waters are muddied when the product is required by law) nor enter private premises. The only trampling on rights that occurs is when private property owners are forced to permit entry to people to whom don't want to permit entry.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can't believe you of all people are getting sucked into this thread, Famine. It's little more than a sham, an attempt to justify a racist attitude by claiming that the rights of the few (business owners) are more precious than the rights of the many (their customers).

I know this to be the case, because I'm not looking at this as a problem of social justice or civil rights. I'm looking it as a purely business problem.

The only trampling on rights that occurs is when private property owners are forced to permit entry to people to whom don't want to permit entry.

They're not forced to permit entry. They are choosing to. By opening a place of business, they are opening their private property to the public for the purchase of goods and services. Those business owners cannot turn around and say that they only want some people to enter their property for whatever reason, be it skin colour or gender or ethnicity. And the reason why they cannot do that is because businesses exist for the purposes of selling good and services. As soon as you start denying those goods and services to people who are capable of paying for them for any reason other than their ability to pay for them, you are no longer doing business (also, discriminating agaisnt customers would likely drive other customers away once they learned of it). Only a fool would turn paying customers away. Since you are not doing business, there is no point in the business existing.

So what the thread-starter has done with his example of a diner is create a scenario that is defeated by its own internal logic. And all that remains is is the attitude of "I should be allowed to be racist because I have the right to think and say as I please". It's obvious he has never been a victim of discrimination, since he views anti-discrimination laws as an inconvenience.

 

[Azuremen]

Wow, what warped logic do you operate with?

 

[Tornado]

As soon as you start denying those goods and services to people who are capable of paying for them for any reason other than their ability to pay for them, you are no longer doing business (also, discriminating agaisnt customers would likely drive other customers away once they learned of it)

Someone walks into a fancy restaurant. They aren't dressed appropriately for the establishment. They are turned away by the maître d. Restaurant is still full of people otherwise.


Are they not doing business? Will their clientele stop going to the restaurant as a result? Or does it only count as discrimination when it covers one of the more headline grabbing cases?

 

[Dennisch]

Racism or discrimination isn't on the same level as a dress code, right? I can see where PM is going with his story and some what agree. But I can also see the other side of the story and some what agree.

Ah, I love how life can be confusing.

 

[Famine]

I can't believe you of all people are getting sucked into this thread, Famine. It's little more than a sham, an attempt to justify a racist attitude by claiming that the rights of the few (business owners) are more precious than the rights of the many (their customers).

People do not have a right to become customers.

They're not forced to permit entry. They are choosing to. By opening a place of business, they are opening their private property to the public for the purchase of goods and services.

But they do not have to sell anything they don't want to to anyone for any reason.

Those business owners cannot turn around and say that they only want some people to enter their property for whatever reason

Why?

As mentioned above, they do it on the basis of dress code all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

And the reason why they cannot do that is because businesses exist for the purposes of selling good and services. As soon as you start denying those goods and services to people who are capable of paying for them for any reason other than their ability to pay for them, you are no longer doing business (also, discriminating agaisnt customers would likely drive other customers away once they learned of it). Only a fool would turn paying customers away. Since you are not doing business, there is no point in the business existing.

Yes, but that's the exact argument as to why this shouldn't be legislated but left to market forces.

Market forces will ensure any business that turns away any customers on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or any other reason than not being able to keep up with demand or unreasonable customer behaviour will fail. Billions of dollars need not be spent making unreasonable and unnecessary laws to achieve it.

So what the thread-starter has done with his example of a diner is create a scenario that is defeated by its own internal logic.

Umm... no? The scenario is that the diner can operate racist policies if it's happy to go out of business, or non-racist policies if it'd prefer to stay in business, without the interference of the state.

And all that remains is is the attitude of "I should be allowed to be racist because I have the right to think and say as I please".

Which is sound.

Choosing not to be racist when given the opportunity is nobler than not being overtly racist when legislated not to be.

It's obvious he has never been a victim of discrimination, since he views anti-discrimination laws as an inconvenience.

Really? I view any anti-discrimination law - many of which are "affirmative action" and thus pro-discrimination - that affects non-public bodies as beyond inconvenience, and I've been the victim of discrimination.

But then so has everyone else.

 

[Tornado]

Racism or discrimination isn't on the same level as a dress code, right?

For the purposes of his example, where turning away anyone for any reason besides inability to pay means they aren't doing business, it makes no difference. For that matter, the purposes of dress codes in places like that more often than not probably boil down to reasoning that is nothing more than keeping people who don't look like they are rich out.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Someone walks into a fancy restaurant. They aren't dressed appropriately for the establishment. They are turned away by the maître d. Restaurant is still full of people otherwise.


Are they not doing business? Will their clientele stop going to the restaurant as a result? Or does it only count as discrimination when it covers one of the more headline grabbing cases?

Good point. *ATH Point Sound* Most establishments often times require you to have a shirt and shoes, does that infringe on basic human rights? No, because they do it because of the public health.

Some establishments require a more formal dress like a tie, but does that discriminate against minorities? No. That is because they want a certain sort of clientele at their establishment. It would be like you go to Wolfgang Puck's place here in Dallas wearing something that you would go hunting in. You would get laughed out the door.

Then there are the very few that require a suit and tie. Again, I ask, does that discriminate? No. Most of the time, these establishments are at high-end casinos and you would want to make it appear that you are a big spender.

 

[Zenith]

I can't believe you of all people are getting sucked into this thread, Famine. It's little more than a sham, an attempt to justify a racist attitude by claiming that the rights of the few (business owners) are more precious than the rights of the many (their customers).

The OP has like 15 posts and you're already saying that he has a racist attitude.

I know this to be the case, because I'm not looking at this as a problem of social justice or civil rights. I'm looking it as a purely business problem.

Racism is stupid and disgusting to me, and no one deserves to be treated that way.

Shortcake's question was centered around laws. He makes his position on racism and segregation clear.

They're not forced to permit entry. They are choosing to. By opening a place of business, they are opening their private property to the public for the purchase of goods and services. Those business owners cannot turn around and say that they only want some people to enter their property for whatever reason, be it skin colour or gender or ethnicity. And the reason why they cannot do that is because businesses exist for the purposes of selling good and services. As soon as you start denying those goods and services to people who are capable of paying for them for any reason other than their ability to pay for them, you are no longer doing business (also, discriminating agaisnt customers would likely drive other customers away once they learned of it). Only a fool would turn paying customers away. Since you are not doing business, there is no point in the business existing.

The line between business and private property is extremely blurry. Where do Bed and Breakfast's fall? What about small diners, shops, and craftsmen who use their place of residence as a place of business?

What about customers who disturb the peace? A restaurant has the right to refuse service to loud customers even if the customers are capable of paying. People are less likely to do business with a restaurant that permits obnoxious customers. I don't shop at Walmart because I'd rather go somewhere with less annoying customers, this results in less sales for Walmart. How is denying service to certain people a foolish business practice?

Furthermore, you haven't answered the question of why anyone should be required by law to serve someone that they don't want to. It doesn't fix bigotry.

Edit: tree'd on this stuff by Mr. Indigo.

So what the thread-starter has done with his example of a diner is create a scenario that is defeated by its own internal logic. And all that remains is is the attitude of "I should be allowed to be racist because I have the right to think and say as I please". It's obvious he has never been a victim of discrimination, since he views anti-discrimination laws as an inconvenience.

Everyone is a target of someone's discrimination.

You should be able to be racist when it's your stuff. People also have the right to treat you differently for doing so.

 

[shortcake57]

It seems odd to me that you would happily trample of the rights of many (the customers) to protect the rights of the few (the diner).

If a diner were allowed to segregate its customers based on their skin colour, then the natural extension of that is that it would also be allowed to segregate its customers based on age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, political alleigance, physical disability and so on. Now, you might think that the only people to suffer from this would be the elderly black Jewish lesbian Democrats with amputated legs, but that's just naive. All you are going to do is create a society where discriminative attitudes are encouraged under the pretense of being for personal choice.

I'm willing to bet that you're a) white, b) a teenager, c) come from a fairly stable home life, and d) have never been a victim or target of discrimination. Only someone with no life experience and the assumption that they know more about the way the world works than they actually do could question one of the most important social revolutions in human history on the basis that it actually undermined the rights it claimed to protect, whilst behaving as if you are the only person capable of seeing this lie that has been perpetuated on the world for half a century. Your attitude and your opinions are naive and insulting at best, and worst, you come across as having a "shocking and thought-provoking" opinion for the sake of it.

The ability to tell when people are lying to you is a virtue. The ability to assume that everyone is always lying to you is not. Cynicism is not something to be valued or to be proud of.

Allowing business to define their own policies would in no way "create a society where discriminative attitudes are encouraged". Rather, businesses would truly reflect the values of the consumers in the market. In today's world, there would be very few racist businesses, because racism is a widely condemned value.

On a different note, the power to prohibit segregation is the same as the power to institutionalize it. If we allow the government to condemn racism, we allow it to make it policy, too.

 

[Sanji Himura]

snip

Zenith, most people don't get that if other people wish to discuss other people's sacred cows, then they get called racist in turn. Take the last election cycle in the US for example. Every time Romney went after Obama's record, he gets labeled a racist by Chris Matthews, MSNBC in general, CNN, basically the MSM.

When, however, you have someone who just got elected as the first BLACK senator from South Carolina, the NAACP attacks them for not supporting their liberal agenda just because he is a republican it just makes me sick.